The basis seems to be "well, I'm going to like the thing Trump didn't do and hate the thing he did do". In the meantime, investments to minimize the reliance on the strait of Hormuz are rolling and just got a very significant motivational boost. That's huge. It's really Iran's only leverage

People want what they want and occasionally an ill informed leader thinks he will make the difference and be successful where others failed or chose not to try

The promise of "opening the spigot" and dramatically lowering the price of oil is a very strong temptation

You aren't going to get a friendly regime without occupying it for years, likely decades.

Set back their nukes - what I'm primarily concerned with. Motivate investment to make Hormuz a much smaller poker chip. That's very valuable

Probably a good time to remind that the worst attack on our mainland was done by guys from one of our friendliest allies there. The lesson being - limit their capability to harm us however you can. Even when you think you may be in control, you are not. More than that is a fool's errand

YouBet said:

---

wrangler1010 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

YouBet said:

---

wrangler1010 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Hez attacked Israel again and they responded. Sabotage by Iran...again. Whole thing is a joke at this point. Hez gets to attack Israel at will but then Hormuz is shut down when Israel responds. No way for deal to happen under those conditions unless Trump totally cuts off Israel which Iran is clearly trying to do. They know Trump is desperate for this deal so they are going to push him to isolate Israel on global stage to get it.

Pretty brilliant by Iran, frankly.

---

If the strait is closed for any period of time....Donald needs to be impeached immediately

---

Seems a bit much.

---

He'd rather have Biden the vegetable.

---

there are a lot better options out there for the Dems than Biden… sadly that was the only option in 2020

---

I'm curious who you think that is?

---

you can start with the governors of Ohio, Michigan and California

I agree hypothetically, our only examples of regime change working out like we wanted were in the aftermath of WWII when we built bases and established a permanent presence.

It's like some on here are forgetting that Trump was busy speculating on who the new leaders in Iran could be after we killed the SL, but he forgot the part about the regime needing to collapse. It was our own president that seemed to indicate a goal of ours was regime change, so I think it's pretty rational to then critique the deal to end the war when the malign regime you bombed is still in power and hasn't agreed to change any of its behavior.

It's a really fair question to ask what this war achieved strategically in the long term. I think everyone agrees that we achieved some impressive short term tactical gains by eliminating most of their traditional military assets, but our initial war aims were much more strategic than that and I think it's very misleading to focus in on those tactical gains when we now face a more complex future with Iran and other adversaries.

They can now close the straits at will with a tweet because the fear of damage to shipping causes companies to not chance it. Iran now knows they have the tools to put the screws to us anytime they want. That's not a good long term outcome.

We killed all their senior leaders and yet they persist. This strategy also failed during GWoT. Surely we've now tabled targeted killing as a strategy, it doesn't work and it undermines our claims to believing in the rule of law since assassination is outlawed by EO and yet we are doing it. (Reagan era EO) Part of spreading American influence has to be seen as a righteous power, and assassination isn't a righteous thing to do.

China and Russia got to watch us fail to subdue a weak enemy. This has long term consequences for our ability to project power and protect our interests.

Trump blusters and talks **** . Kind of funny people still don't realize that. Yes, he sets himself up for criticism by doing so and the appearance this fell short. In reality, this was some work that needed doing

Iran has always known it can use the strait for leverage. They have done it before. Know your history. This didn't teach them that lol. What it did do is put some more pep in folks step to marginalize it. It changes nothing in how we are perceived. That's laughable. We spent a few decades afraid to barely touch them. Now we killed their leader and smashed their toys to where their main method of warfare was resorting to trying to terrorize commercial shipping with some drones, all while capability to minimize that tactic is being built.

I work for the government and have worked the Iran mission for multiple years. Iran has always blustered about closing the straits, actually putting that bluster into operational practice is a massive shift. This is "we've always been at war with Eastasia" levels of revisionism to claim that Iran has ever operationally closed the straits before. Trump's actions led to Iran learning exactly how they can do it. I do agree that perhaps we now see a future shift away from Hormuz, but that clearly wasn't a day one goal.

And I'm not really sure how a claim of "Trump always says crazy stuff" somehow absolves him of saying stupid stuff. When you are the president you have to consider the consequences of what you say, it comes with the job. He's a very lucky man to have such a dedicated army of supporters who are willing to just attribute any silly thing he says to some sort of 4D chess game that only Trump can see the endgame on and know what he "really meant to say."

Both Iran and Iraq caused major disruptions to it in the 1980s. This isn't some made up fantasy. They've known they can do it because it's not hard, unless we decide to send in an occupying force.

And I'm not absolving him for what he says. I'm saying real regime change is only possible with a massively extended occupation of Iran. So anyone chalking this up as a failure because we didn't is foolish. It can't happen short of an Iraq-like occupation. But we did show we can damn sure end whoever sits in those seats. However, like almost all of these countries, there are always more cockroaches.

BusterAg said:

---

Tough crowd.

Is that the only thing that would make you happy?

---

People like that will never be happy as long as Trump is President. They will jump through hoops to downplay everything he does and then not care when the other party is in power pushing worse policies.

richardag said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

better for iran? yes

---

Please explain.

---

off the top of my head i can think of about 300 billion reasons

annie88 said:

---

richardag said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

better for iran? yes

---

Please explain.

---

He can't. He just hates Trump.

---

by all means, if you think otherwise make your case

Enrico Pallazzo said:

---

Both Iran and Iraq caused major disruptions to it in the 1980s. This isn't some made up fantasy. They've known they can do it because it's not hard, unless we decide to send in an occupying force.

---

All I can tell you is that from our side, we had an operational assumption that we could likely reopen the straits if Iran tried to close them. That assumption has been shattered, not because Iran has some capability we didn't know about, but rather because shipping companies have just opted out of risking a passage through the straits even with the power of the US Navy trying to protect shipping.

I and others with military backgrounds on this topic will all tell you similar things.

I just don't think you are comprehending how massive of a shift it is to go from claiming to have the ability to close the straits to now having proof that they can close them just by saying the straits are closed. They don't even have to mine the straits or blockade them, they just say they are closed and the threat of a suicide drone is enough.

As for the history issue, I'm still not sure how you are trying to argue that disruptions to shipping during the Iran-Iraq war support your position. As soon as those two warring nations targeted shipping, the US Navy went in and sunk the entire Iranian fleet. Your example actually proves the opposite of what you claim, operation praying mantis was seen as an effective deterrent to Iranian threats of disrupting shipping and closing the straits for years. It's now apparent that Iranian irregular tactics are sufficient to present a threat to shipping.

And to make sure we're on topic here, this is where Trump's deal making is weak in this case because the Iranians really do have the stronger bargaining position and we are negotiating against a self imposed clock.

They proved they can survive our "Epic Fury" and they proved that traffic through Hormuz flows on their command. Our only way to strengthen our bargaining position would have been another round of bombing targeting major infrastructure to make life in Iran unbearable and thus crank the pressure up on the new leadership and for whatever reason Trump has remained remarkably restrained in not ordering new strikes.

Well, all I have to say is that apparently we employ some folks with an incredibly naive view of the strait. I guess our President may have gotten some bad advice to inform his decision here.

I'll agree that there are a lot of people who have egg on their face right now that assumed we could keep the straits open by force. The historical example of praying mantis seemed to validate the idea that we had that kind of naval advantage.

While I was not one of those planners or involved in any sort of naval operations, I am similarly guilty of accepting the premise of our naval supremacy without considering how Iran might find ways to threaten shipping that we could not counter.

AggieEP said:

---

Enrico Pallazzo said:

---

Both Iran and Iraq caused major disruptions to it in the 1980s. This isn't some made up fantasy. They've known they can do it because it's not hard, unless we decide to send in an occupying force.

---

All I can tell you is that from our side, we had an operational assumption that we could likely reopen the straits if Iran tried to close them. That assumption has been shattered, not because Iran has some capability we didn't know about, but rather because shipping companies have just opted out of risking a passage through the straits even with the power of the US Navy trying to protect shipping.

I and others with military backgrounds on this topic will all tell you similar things.

I just don't think you are comprehending how massive of a shift it is to go from claiming to have the ability to close the straits to now having proof that they can close them just by saying the straits are closed. They don't even have to mine the straits or blockade them, they just say they are closed and the threat of a suicide drone is enough.

As for the history issue, I'm still not sure how you are trying to argue that disruptions to shipping during the Iran-Iraq war support your position. As soon as those two warring nations targeted shipping, the US Navy went in and sunk the entire Iranian fleet. Your example actually proves the opposite of what you claim, operation praying mantis was seen as an effective deterrent to Iranian threats of disrupting shipping and closing the straits for years. It's now apparent that Iranian irregular tactics are sufficient to present a threat to shipping.

And to make sure we're on topic here, this is where Trump's deal making is weak in this case because the Iranians really do have the stronger bargaining position and we are negotiating against a self imposed clock.

They proved they can survive our "Epic Fury" and they proved that traffic through Hormuz flows on their command. Our only way to strengthen our bargaining position would have been another round of bombing targeting major infrastructure to make life in Iran unbearable and thus crank the pressure up on the new leadership and for whatever reason Trump has remained remarkably restrained in not ordering new strikes.

---

And are you comprehending how massive the shift it would have been from them claiming they could close the strait to them having a nuclear weapon that would have completely changed not just the Middle East, but the entire world?


BTW, I think the "Trump deal" sucks. I was willing to give it a chance at the beginning but it's obvious Iran is just playing us yet again.

AggieEP said:

---

I'll agree that there are a lot of people who have egg on their face right now that assumed we could keep the straits open by force. The historical example of praying mantis seemed to validate the idea that we had that kind of naval advantage.

While I was not one of those planners or involved in any sort of naval operations, I am similarly guilty of accepting the premise of our naval supremacy without considering how Iran might find ways to threaten shipping that we could not counter.

---

Do you realize how many shipping areas could be shut down worldwide by some *******s who decided to do it?

Iran ALWAYS could have done this. But, now that they have, they've changed the world calculus on the SoH.

What do you think would happen if Malaysia decided it wanted to shut down the Singapore Strait?

But, they're not doing that because they're not an ******* country that is hellbound to push terrorism around the world.

I'm one of the good guys here that has actually done tangible work to weaken the Iranian state and their military capabilities.

I'm likely the only person here that speaks fluent Persian, and I've dedicated my life to protecting people like you from Iran. I trained an entire generation of linguists that helped build the target decks to destroy their nuclear sites.

But please, continue with your derailment if it makes you feel better.

AggieEP said:

---

I'm one of the good guys here that has actually done tangible work to weaken the Iranian state and their military capabilities.

I'm likely the only person here that speaks fluent Persian, and I've dedicated my life to protecting people like you from Iran. I trained an entire generation of linguists that helped build the target decks to destroy their nuclear sites.

But please, continue with your derailment if it makes you feel better.

---

Oh...well.

If you know more than everyone else everywhere, I apologize.

Carry on with your arrogance.

Ag with kids said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

I'm one of the good guys here that has actually done tangible work to weaken the Iranian state and their military capabilities.

I'm likely the only person here that speaks fluent Persian, and I've dedicated my life to protecting people like you from Iran. I trained an entire generation of linguists that helped build the target decks to destroy their nuclear sites.

But please, continue with your derailment if it makes you feel better.

---

Oh...well.

If you know more than everyone else everywhere, I apologize.

Carry on with your arrogance.

---

Look man, you suggested I didn't consider the importance of undermining Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon.

I'm simply telling you that I'm prob the only one who has taken action on that issue and who doesn't just sit around on message boards talking about it. After 9/11 I pledged to myself to use my language capabilities (I speak Arabic and Persian) to try and make sure no one from over there could harm Americans.

You tried for some sort of gotcha moment on me and I don't care for that kind of crap. Just because I don't work overtime to goaltend for the President doesn't mean I can't be a conservative or that I can't be pulling in the same direction we all are here hoping to remove the Iranian threats from the battlefield.

YouBet said:

---

Hez attacked Israel again and they responded. Sabotage by Iran...again. Whole thing is a joke at this point. Hez gets to attack Israel at will but then Hormuz is shut down when Israel responds. No way for deal to happen under those conditions unless Trump totally cuts off Israel which Iran is clearly trying to do. They know Trump is desperate for this deal so they are going to push him to isolate Israel on global stage to get it.

Pretty brilliant by Iran, frankly.

---

Exact reason why we should have never went to war for Israel in the first place. The reason why when wars are fault someone has to be in charge. You can't have 2 countries with different goals as equals. Israel was never our equal our goals come first they come after us.

I know some here think we should be link and they should have equal status with us. Israel being on equal status with us is like my kids telling me what they are going to do. I pay all the bills keep them fed and safe but they think they have the same input in decisions making not how it works. It's proven the great conspiracy theory that it's even came to this. No other country in the world would ever be link to our foreign policy. We pay taxes to Washington not Tel Aviv.

We're so hamstrung by the democrats and the left in our country we can't accomplish anything anymore except how to master the art of fraud. We should've bombed them back to the 14th century and gave them nothing. But the MSM and the left would scream from the mountain tops every day 24/7 so that Republicans lose the midterms. They care about power, not the good of the country or world order. Power is all the dems and the left want.

Old McDonald said:

---

richardag said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

better for iran? yes

---

Please explain.

---

off the top of my head i can think of about 300 billion reasons

---

That's it? That's all you got?

ts5641 said:

---

We're so hamstrung by the democrats and the left in our country we can't accomplish anything anymore except how to master the art of fraud. We should've bombed them back to the 14th century and gave them nothing. But the MSM and the left would scream from the mountain tops every day 24/7 so that Republicans lose the midterms. They care about power, not the good of the country or world order. Power is all the dems and the left want.

---

So you are saying that Republicans are more worried about the midterms than the good of the country? Seems like a self own.

Kalshi will let you know along with Israel and the price of oil.

The one thing we couldn't do is sit back and do nothing. That was inevitably going to lead to them having a nuke. The only way to fully prevent a nuke is full occupation. This is the in-between - keep setting them back by turning as much of their program as possible into rubble. They'll try to rebuild; if we have any fortitude, we hit it again when they try.

You should take companies' risk aversion in the strait as a good sign. They are now more motivated than ever for alternatives because of the past few months, and once you have that, Iran has lost massive leverage. You can hammer them for an extended time. Who cares if they learned how to disrupt it if you can mostly take it off the board?

This strategy is completely logical.

Yeah, but what is the realistic timeline on a total pivot away from the the Strait of Hormuz?

That's got to at least be a 10 year project to figure out how to run pipelines across the Arabian peninsula and I'm not sure what the differential is in the cost of oil when you end up using pipelines and then loading onto oil tankers.

I'm not against this as a long term solution, but there is still a long way to go before we can take Hormuz off the board. Also it requires multiple countries to cooperate that don't always play nice. Imagine you're Qatar and the Saudis periodically don't like you and close the border between the countries, now they are going to ship their oil across Saudi Arabia?

Also I'd bet the Iranians would have no qualms about targeting these pipelines if backed into a corner.

All to say I'm not sure this is a panacea, although it is a probably a good step to minimize Iranian influence.

As long as SOH is used as cudgel the mullahs have us by the neck, no way around that.

It will take time but the other 2 alternatives are full occupation or doing nothing. Those are not viable. If I told you in 2016 that we could massively marginalize Iran by 2026, you'd be happy we did. Our do-nothing strategy has put us in the position we are in. We have to start digging out of it and this was the beginning, not the end. Nothing will be solved there in a few months or a few years.

Someone else stated it better but a half glass full take on this is that now that the ambiguity of Hormuz is removed the rest of the world now knows the permanent state of things there. Thus, countries will now start to take action to mitigate reliance on using Hormuz due to extra costs and the fickle nature of being beholden to an insane Muslim death cult.

But, yes, it will take a decade (+- whatever) to rewire supply chains. So I think the Hormuz Problem eventually gets solved.

What is not going to get solved is the nuclear problem. The last deal had sunsets and this deal will have sunsets, if they get to a deal. Here is the current nuclear "solution" on the table being debated:

Quote:

---

The Trump administration wants Tehran to destroy or turn over its stockpile and suspend future enrichment. Iran has expressed openness to "downblending" the uranium to lower levels of enrichment inside the country and stop enrichment activities for about a decade. The U.S. wants it to stop for 20 years.

---

So even if this signed, we will be back at the blackmail table in 10-20 years. Same outcome as the Obama deal would have been.

If they build, we need to destroy. Not sit at a table. Nuclear capability has to be a completely non-negotiable point. Building alternatives to Hormuz puts us in a much better position to destroy

Enrico Pallazzo said:

---

The one thing we couldn't do is sit back and do nothing. That was inevitably going to lead to them having a nuke. The only way to fully prevent a nuke is full occupation. This is the in-between - keep setting them back by turning as much of their program as possible into rubble. They'll try to rebuild; if we have any fortitude, we hit it again when they try.

You should take companies' risk aversion in the strait as a good sign. They are now more motivated than ever for alternatives because of the past few months, and once you have that, Iran has lost massive leverage. You can hammer them for an extended time. Who cares if they learned how to disrupt it if you can mostly take it off the board?

This strategy is completely logical.

---

Excellent post.

AggieEP said:

---

Yeah, but what is the realistic timeline on a total pivot away from the the Strait of Hormuz?

That's got to at least be a 10 year project to figure out how to run pipelines across the Arabian peninsula and I'm not sure what the differential is in the cost of oil when you end up using pipelines and then loading onto oil tankers.

I'm not against this as a long term solution, but there is still a long way to go before we can take Hormuz off the board. Also it requires multiple countries to cooperate that don't always play nice. Imagine you're Qatar and the Saudis periodically don't like you and close the border between the countries, now they are going to ship their oil across Saudi Arabia?

Also I'd bet the Iranians would have no qualms about targeting these pipelines if backed into a corner.

All to say I'm not sure this is a panacea, although it is a probably a good step to minimize Iranian influence.

---

I heard less than 5 years to complete the pipeline. If they have Trump as a consultant on the build then within 2 years.

Enrico Pallazzo said:

---

If they build, we need to destroy. Not sit at a table. Nuclear capability has to be a completely non-negotiable point. Building alternatives to Hormuz puts us in a much better position to destroy

---

Agreed. Just keep sat tabs on them and destroy their nuke sites every time they get a foothold with one. Pretty cheap mitigation all things considered and they can't stop us from doing it.